Daniel v. Santa Rosa Junior College et al

Filing 115

ORDER denying 103 Motion to Strike, denying 104 Motion to Strike, and vacating hearing. (vclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7

GEORGE DANIEL,

Case No. 13-cv-02426-VC

Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH RICHARDS, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
STRIKE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 103, 104

Defendants.

8
9
10

Plaintiff George Daniel's motions to strike the defendants' answers are denied. The

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

answers do not constitute testimony of the defendants' counsel, nor do they violate the Federal

12

Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the County defendants' answer was filed six days late, Daniel

13

has not identified any prejudice that resulted from this late filing. "[A] case should, whenever

14

possible, be decided on the merits." United States v. Signed Personal Check No. 730, 615 F.3d

15

1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court therefore declines to

16

strike the County defendants' answer for being a few days late. Cf. Gibson v. Household Int'l, Inc.,

17

151 Fed. App'x 529, 530 (9th Cir. 2005) (denying motion to strike late-filed answer because the

18

Ninth Circuit and "[t]he strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favor[]

19

decisions on the merits").

20

The hearing on the motions to strike, previously scheduled for August 28, 2014, is vacated.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2014
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge